DamianoMachiavelli wrote:Huh? LA was doping less than the other riders. He was not using HGH. He was not using artificial hemoglobin. He was not doped all season long. If you want to talk about industrial waste then let's talk about the Spanish teams. Those teams doped more than any other.

Umm, he was on HGH. He was doped all season long. Where are you getting this? He has admitted as much. Not 09'-10' but if you believe that, we'll I've got a bridge over the East River that might pique your interest. Although, sure, maybe if he admitted it may actually not be true. It's HWMNBN we're talking about. But I think it's on the reasoned decision as well, if you'd rather go on that.

Also, and the key point here, he was pushing other riders to take more drugs, while he was enforcing omerta more than anyone. He was not the extorted, he was not even a mere foot solider. He was a freaking capo, if not the capo di tutt'i capi. His share of the spoils was greater than all the other shares put together, in so far as individuals go.

LA was not using HGH after 1996. He was not doped all season like Hamilton, who was doped to the gills for the Ardennes, the Giro, the Tour, the Olympics, the Vuelta, and races in between. LA doped to accomplish his goal of winning the Tour; that is all he had to do. The list of substances the Spanish teams had their riders on was on an entirely different level than what Ferrari had his riders using.

You have been listening too much to Tygart's fairy tales about Lance "forcing" people to dope. It is crap. No one pushed others to dope. The necessity was self evident, and people made their own decisions. Riders like Bassons did not quit because of LA; they quit because their own teammates wanted them out.

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:Huh? LA was doping less than the other riders. He was not using HGH. He was not using artificial hemoglobin. He was not doped all season long. If you want to talk about industrial waste then let's talk about the Spanish teams. Those teams doped more than any other.

Umm, he was on HGH. He was doped all season long. Where are you getting this? He has admitted as much. Not 09'-10' but if you believe that, we'll I've got a bridge over the East River that might pique your interest. Although, sure, maybe if he admitted it may actually not be true. It's HWMNBN we're talking about. But I think it's on the reasoned decision as well, if you'd rather go on that.

Also, and the key point here, he was pushing other riders to take more drugs, while he was enforcing omerta more than anyone. He was not the extorted, he was not even a mere foot solider. He was a freaking capo, if not the capo di tutt'i capi. His share of the spoils was greater than all the other shares put together, in so far as individuals go.

Exactly. The problem with Lance is that he wasn't just playing the system and adapting well to the conditions imposed on him by the corruption and doping of the sport. He wasn't simply doing what everyone else was doing. Rather, he was a very active protagonist in developing and sustaining the corruption and doping culture. He wasn't a victim of the system, he was an integral part of the system.

In the aftermath of Festina, he was integral to bringing about the second wave of doping. He didn't just quietly get on with doing his best under the omerta and happened to come out on top in the big races. He bullied clean riders, he used his influence and contacts in the UCI to quash positive tests, he used his power to buy exclusive access to the best doping doctor, and he effectively set up his own media arm, backed by rabid lawyers, to hound anyone who dared criticized him.

Yet, even now, he's trying to paint the picture that it was a level playing field, where he was just doing what was necessary to compete.

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:You have been listening too much to Tygart's fairy tales about Lance "forcing" people to dope. It is crap. No one pushed others to dope. The necessity was self evident, and people made their own decisions. Riders like Bassons did not quit because of LA; they quit because their own teammates wanted them out.

LOLZ. He quit HGH in '96, then? Seems really plausible. HWMNBN surely paid more than the rest for a lesser programe but got more out of it because you can't beat old-fashioned hard work, can you?

But the real jewel in your argument isn't that. Nah, it's that people made their own decisions when it comes to the others who were threatened and had fired and attempted to have black-balled (it's can't possibly be his fault if other people complied to those requests now, can it?). Free will is absolute. But yet when it comes to one rider in particular the truth was that the sport was an unassailable sewer and the decision was made for him (not only to dope, but to attempt to perpetuate and protect doping). Free will is not merely an illusion but a fantasy. And then you ask for consistency. Good God. Escher would be proud.

"Christmas is tomorrow... Let's get in the break." - Matt Hayman, 4/9/16"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness." - Tolstoy

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:Huh? LA was doping less than the other riders. He was not using HGH. He was not using artificial hemoglobin. He was not doped all season long. If you want to talk about industrial waste then let's talk about the Spanish teams. Those teams doped more than any other.

Umm, he was on HGH. He was doped all season long. Where are you getting this? He has admitted as much. Not 09'-10' but if you believe that, we'll I've got a bridge over the East River that might pique your interest. Although, sure, maybe if he admitted it may actually not be true. It's HWMNBN we're talking about. But I think it's on the reasoned decision as well, if you'd rather go on that.

Also, and the key point here, he was pushing other riders to take more drugs, while he was enforcing omerta more than anyone. He was not the extorted, he was not even a mere foot solider. He was a freaking capo, if not the capo di tutt'i capi. His share of the spoils was greater than all the other shares put together, in so far as individuals go.

Exactly. The problem with Lance is that he wasn't just playing the system and adapting well to the conditions imposed on him by the corruption and doping of the sport. He wasn't simply doing what everyone else was doing. Rather, he was a very active protagonist in developing and sustaining the corruption and doping culture. He wasn't a victim of the system, he was an integral part of the system.

In the aftermath of Festina, he was integral to bringing about the second wave of doping. He didn't just quietly get on with doing his best under the omerta and happened to come out on top in the big races. He bullied clean riders, he used his influence and contacts in the UCI to quash positive tests, he used his power to buy exclusive access to the best doping doctor, and he effectively set up his own media arm, backed by rabid lawyers, to hound anyone who dared criticized him.

Yet, even now, he's trying to paint the picture that it was a level playing field, where he was just doing what was necessary to compete.

Oh, brother. The second wave of doping? ROTFL. There was no "second wave" of doping. There is one continuous flood that began one hundred and thirty years ago. The tide never went out. There has never been a respite. Festina did nothing to inhibit it. You are listening to a Betsy Andreu's "blame everything on Lance" morality tale where everyone was about to give up doping but the evil Lance Armstrong forced everyone to continue. It is laughable.

The playing field was as level as it has always been. Everyone was free to purchase the doping aid that fit their budget in the same way teams today are free to purchase the aerodynamic testing they can afford. All sports are like that. Those with more money have an advantage. It makes no difference whether you are buying coaches, training facilities, athletes, drugs, or marginal gains.

I especially like how we are supposed to feel sorry that those who went out of their way to pick a fight with Armstrong got the fight they were seeking. We are supposed to feel sorry for the crocodile tears of Betsy Andreu? She is more of a vindictive sociopath than LA ever was. While Lance is trying to move on, she is still at it.

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:I especially like how we are supposed to feel sorry that those who went out of their way to pick a fight with Armstrong got the fight they were seeking. We are supposed to feel sorry for the crocodile tears of Betsy Andreu? She is more of a vindictive sociopath than LA ever was. While Lance is trying to move on, she is still at it.

I'm crying. Poor guy. Really. He's just trying to move on. Find his place in the world. And we're all keeping him from living his truth. Betsy, come on, he just called you every name in the book, black balled your husband, used you as a prop in his lame apology tour. Get over it! So what if insists that you a liar. Can't you see he is just a lost little boy who had a dream to score with a string of not-completely-dissimilar-looking-women. He made some mistakes, but don't we all? Stopping at nothing to live out your dream is something to be admired. Sure, he lied upon the graves of dead cancer patients. But who hasn't done that a few hundred times? Who are we to judge him for that? Only God will judge us. Wrongdoing is just a fascistic concept made up by moralistic sociopaths who would deny a man his happiness because some misguided notion that punishment can deter misconduct and some naive belief that objective truth is something worth striving for.

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:Huh? LA was doping less than the other riders. He was not using HGH. He was not using artificial hemoglobin. He was not doped all season long. If you want to talk about industrial waste then let's talk about the Spanish teams. Those teams doped more than any other.

Umm, he was on HGH. He was doped all season long. Where are you getting this? He has admitted as much. Not 09'-10' but if you believe that, we'll I've got a bridge over the East River that might pique your interest. Although, sure, maybe if he admitted it may actually not be true. It's HWMNBN we're talking about. But I think it's on the reasoned decision as well, if you'd rather go on that.

Also, and the key point here, he was pushing other riders to take more drugs, while he was enforcing omerta more than anyone. He was not the extorted, he was not even a mere foot solider. He was a freaking capo, if not the capo di tutt'i capi. His share of the spoils was greater than all the other shares put together, in so far as individuals go.

Exactly. The problem with Lance is that he wasn't just playing the system and adapting well to the conditions imposed on him by the corruption and doping of the sport. He wasn't simply doing what everyone else was doing. Rather, he was a very active protagonist in developing and sustaining the corruption and doping culture. He wasn't a victim of the system, he was an integral part of the system.

In the aftermath of Festina, he was integral to bringing about the second wave of doping. He didn't just quietly get on with doing his best under the omerta and happened to come out on top in the big races. He bullied clean riders, he used his influence and contacts in the UCI to quash positive tests, he used his power to buy exclusive access to the best doping doctor, and he effectively set up his own media arm, backed by rabid lawyers, to hound anyone who dared criticized him.

Yet, even now, he's trying to paint the picture that it was a level playing field, where he was just doing what was necessary to compete.

Oh, brother. The second wave of doping? ROTFL. There was no "second wave" of doping. There is one continuous flood that began one hundred and thirty years ago. The tide never went out. There has never been a respite. Festina did nothing to inhibit it. You are listening to a Betsy Andreu's "blame everything on Lance" morality tale where everyone was about to give up doping but the evil Lance Armstrong forced everyone to continue. It is laughable.

The playing field was as level as it has always been. Everyone was free to purchase the doping aid that fit their budget in the same way teams today are free to purchase the aerodynamic testing they can afford. All sports are like that. Those with more money have an advantage. It makes no difference whether you are buying coaches, training facilities, athletes, drugs, or marginal gains.

I especially like how we are supposed to feel sorry that those who went out of their way to pick a fight with Armstrong got the fight they were seeking. We are supposed to feel sorry for the crocodile tears of Betsy Andreu? She is more of a vindictive sociopath than LA ever was. While Lance is trying to move on, she is still at it.

Yeah we are; for her, for Emma O'Reilly, Walsh, Lemond,..... for all that cross path with this sociopath that you are defending.

DamianoMachiavelli wrote:Huh? LA was doping less than the other riders. He was not using HGH. He was not using artificial hemoglobin. He was not doped all season long. If you want to talk about industrial waste then let's talk about the Spanish teams. Those teams doped more than any other.

Umm, he was on HGH. He was doped all season long. Where are you getting this? He has admitted as much. Not 09'-10' but if you believe that, we'll I've got a bridge over the East River that might pique your interest. Although, sure, maybe if he admitted it may actually not be true. It's HWMNBN we're talking about. But I think it's on the reasoned decision as well, if you'd rather go on that.

Also, and the key point here, he was pushing other riders to take more drugs, while he was enforcing omerta more than anyone. He was not the extorted, he was not even a mere foot solider. He was a freaking capo, if not the capo di tutt'i capi. His share of the spoils was greater than all the other shares put together, in so far as individuals go.

LA was not using HGH after 1996. He was not doped all season like Hamilton, who was doped to the gills for the Ardennes, the Giro, the Tour, the Olympics, the Vuelta, and races in between. LA doped to accomplish his goal of winning the Tour; that is all he had to do. The list of substances the Spanish teams had their riders on was on an entirely different level than what Ferrari had his riders using.

You have been listening too much to Tygart's fairy tales about Lance "forcing" people to dope. It is crap. No one pushed others to dope. The necessity was self evident, and people made their own decisions. Riders like Bassons did not quit because of LA; they quit because their own teammates wanted them out.

topt wrote:Yeah we are; for her, for Emma O'Reilly, Walsh, Lemond,..... for all that cross path with this sociopath that you are defending.

LeMond? The guy who attacks those who doped a decade after he retired while he maintains omerta for those who supposedly stole wins from him during his career. That LeMond? Let's hear LeMond say a single word about doped riders who competed against him instead of doing public appearances with them. The only thing that concerns LeMond is those who take the public spotlight off him.

And Walsh: The man who wrote the autobiographies of dopers like Kelly, Roche, and Radcliffe, which he still defends, and has been the chief propagandist for Sky, Wiggins, and Froome? The Walsh that spent years attacking all who questioned the ridiculous performances of Sky? That Walsh? It appears LA's big mistake was not paying him to write a book.

topt wrote:Yeah we are; for her, for Emma O'Reilly, Walsh, Lemond,..... for all that cross path with this sociopath that you are defending.

LeMond? The guy who attacks those who doped a decade after he retired while he maintains omerta for those who supposedly stole wins from him during his career. That LeMond? Let's hear LeMond say a single word about doped riders who competed against him instead of doing public appearances with them. The only thing that concerns LeMond is those who take the public spotlight off him.

And Walsh: The man who wrote the autobiographies of dopers like Kelly, Roche, and Radcliffe, which he still defends, and has been the chief propagandist for Sky, Wiggins, and Froome? The Walsh that spent years attacking all who questioned the ridiculous performances of Sky? That Walsh? It appears LA's big mistake was not paying him to write a book.

What an unexpectedly glib diss. I'm shocked. Though I can't really deny the point. Touché.

Anyway, I'm not claiming he's the epitome of evil (I nominate Joe Stalin for that title -controversial, I know). He's just seemingly inalienably and irredeemably evil and is thus best ignored. And then we wouldn't have to relitigate something that is so clearly for the rest of the world res judicata again. Everyone wins! But YMMV.

"Christmas is tomorrow... Let's get in the break." - Matt Hayman, 4/9/16"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness." - Tolstoy

This is not the place to discuss all things Lance. If you want to do that please do it in the correct thread. You can obviously discuss his up-coming role in this movie here, but not how much of a horrible person he is/isn't.

This is not the place to discuss all things Lance. If you want to do that please do it in the correct thread. You can obviously discuss his up-coming role in this movie here, but not how much of a horrible person he is/isn't.

Thanks for cutting off conversation. We would not want any of that in this forum.

As to the movie, it looks pretty stupid, though hopefully it will give some scope to doping in all sports, and the history of cycling in perspective.

I don't quite get the 1982 Tour reference the film makes. As noted, Hinault won that Tour going away, and it was during an era when doping was at a fairly low lull, with some riders probably on cortisone, maybe training or racing in cooler weather on amphetamines, or possibly minimal steroid use (considered to build too much muscle back then), blood doping was rare, and considered very risky to one's health. Hinault wasn't clean his whole career, but he very likely was for some of it, perhaps during the '82 Tour as well, as he was so dominant at that time to begin with (including winning the final sprint on the Champs-Élysées). Did they mean 1992? By then EPO was pretty much ubiquitous in cycling.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I don't quite get the 1982 Tour reference the film makes. As noted, Hinault won that Tour going away, and it was during an era when doping was at a fairly low lull, with some riders probably on cortisone, maybe training or racing in cooler weather on amphetamines, or possibly minimal steroid use (considered to build too much muscle back then), blood doping was rare, and considered very risky to one's health. Hinault wasn't clean his whole career, but he very likely was for some of it, perhaps during the '82 Tour as well, as he was so dominant at that time to begin with (including winning the final sprint on the Champs-Élysées).

First of all, the claim that in 1982 blood doping was rare and considered very risky to one's health: do come and join the party and share your knowledge, I'd love evidence for that.

Second, the notion that doping was at some sort of fairly low lull at this stage: for French cycling this was the era of François Bellocq while in Italy there is clear evidence that things were actually gearing up with Francesco Conconi playing a larger and larger role. Hinault's year out - 1983 - was believed by many (as would Laurent Fignon's later year out) to have been caused by too much doping. As for the 1982 Tour itself: FFS, Joop Zoetemelk finished second, despite having been busted for doping and docked ten minutes. As for that final sprint...

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Thanks fmk_Rol - I wonder if the movie is actually going to go into this much detail though?

It's a 40-45 minute TV programme, a sophomoric satire, a mockumentary - why the bloody hell do so many think it's going to be a doctoral dissertation? Do you expect The Office to have detail on the ethical sourcing of paper products and the correct application of health and safety laws? Talk about fun-sucking killjoys...

No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.